TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal, Remands for Rent Arrears Redetermination</h1> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the High Court's judgment regarding eviction but maintaining the remand for redetermination of ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (New Rent Act)2. Date of completion of the building3. Payment of arrears of rent4. Application of Section 39 of the New Rent Act during pending litigationIssue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (New Rent Act):The primary issue was whether the building in question was exempt from the New Rent Act. The respondent claimed the building was constructed in 1971 and thus exempt for ten years under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the New Rent Act. The appellant contended that the building was constructed in 1968, making it subject to the New Rent Act. The Third Additional District Judge and the High Court both held that the building was exempt from the New Rent Act as it was less than ten years old at the time of the suit.2. Date of Completion of the Building:The date of completion was crucial to determining the applicability of the New Rent Act. The building was assessed to house and water tax on 1st October 1971, which was considered the completion date. The High Court accepted this finding, making the building less than ten years old at the time of the suit, thus exempt from the New Rent Act.3. Payment of Arrears of Rent:The appellant argued that he had paid Rs. 1000 through a cheque dated 16th August 1976, which the landlord received on 15th September 1976. The High Court found that the payment by cheque was not specifically put to the landlord in the witness box, and there was no clear evidence for which period this payment was made. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's decree relating to the recovery of Rs. 3158.30 as arrears of rent and remanded the case for redetermination of the amount of rent in arrears.4. Application of Section 39 of the New Rent Act During Pending Litigation:The appellant argued that even if the building was initially exempt, it became subject to the New Rent Act during the pendency of the litigation as it completed ten years. The Supreme Court referred to Section 2 of the New Rent Act, which exempts buildings for ten years from the date of completion. It was noted that the building completed ten years during the litigation. The Court cited the principle from Pasupati Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders that courts must consider facts arising after the initiation of litigation if they fundamentally impact the right to relief. The Court decided that the appellant should be given the benefit of the New Rent Act, including the protections under Section 39, which allows tenants to avoid eviction by paying arrears and other dues.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the High Court's judgment regarding eviction but maintaining the remand for redetermination of rent arrears. The case was sent back to the III Additional District Judge to apply the New Rent Act, giving the appellant an opportunity to deposit dues as per Section 39, after determining any amount due towards rent. The costs were to abide by the result.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
